Madras High Court
Peeter @ Peeter Arivazhakan vs The State Represented By on 22 October, 2019
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan, N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Criminal Appeal (MD)No.50 of 2018
Peeter @ Peeter Arivazhakan ... Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Arantangi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District. ... Respondent/
[Cr.No.62 of 2008] Complainant
Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
against the judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed in S.C.No.108 of 2010 by the learned
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Christopher
For Respondent : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, made in http://www.judis.nic.in 1/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 S.C.No.108 of 2010, dated 12.09.2012. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows:
Conviction Sentence
U/s.302 I.P.C. To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only), in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years.
U/s.506(ii) I.P.C., (2 Counts) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each count. (2 Counts).
Facts of the case in brief:
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Santhana Mary was the mother-in-law of the appellant, who had married her daughter. The appellant had misunderstanding with his wife for a long time since he was suspecting her character and fidelity. One year before the occurrence, he had a quarrel with his wife and in the heat of passion, he is alleged to have attacked her with a stone on her head and attempted to murder her. In view of the same, the wife of the appellant left along with two children from the matrimonial home and took shelter with her parents.
3. On 13.02.2008, at about 07.00 p.m., the appellant was waiting near a vacant house site with an ulterior motive to murder his mother-in-law, who is the deceased. On the said date, there was an ear boring function of a close relative, which was celebrated in a church, which is also situated in the same street. The deceased attended the said function and she was returning home and at that http://www.judis.nic.in 2/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 relevant point of time, the appellant is said to have waylaid and scolded her with filthy language and attacked her indiscriminately with an aruval, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Aranthangi and was provided with first aid by P.W.11 and from there, she was referred to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur.
She was undergoing treatment in the said hospital till 18.02.2008. Due to the severe injuries sustained by her, she ultimately died on 18.02.2008 at about 03.30 a.m.
4. The Special Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.12) received the information regarding the admission of the deceased at the Government Hospital, Aranthangi and he went to the said hospital. He was informed that the deceased has been further referred to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. He went to the said hospital and found that the deceased was not in a position to speak and therefore, he recorded the statement of P.W.1, who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and returned back to the Station and registered an F.I.R., in Cr.No.62 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
5. The investigation was taken up by the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.13) on 14.02.2008 and he went to the scene of occurrence at about 01.45 p.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.4) and also Rough Sketch (Ex.P.8). He also recovered the material objects that were available in the scene of crime (M.O.2 and M.O.3) in the presence of witnesses. He also started recording the statements of http://www.judis.nic.in 3/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. He received the information at 06.30 a.m., on 18.02.2008 to the effect that the deceased died at the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur and hence, the F.I.R., was altered for the offences under Sections 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and the Alteration Report (Ex.P.9) was sent to the Court.
6. The Circle Inspector- Rajendran (P.W.14), on receipt of the express report, took up the further investigation and he went to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur and conducted the inquest over the dead body in the presence of the Panchayatdars between 10.00 a.m., and 12.00 noon and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.10). He, thereafter, sent the dead body through the Police Constable (P.W.10) with a requisition to conduct post-mortem and to hand over the body to the relatives.
7. On 05.04.2010 (i.e., after two years after the incident), the appellant was arrested and based on the voluntary confession given by him, the weapon was not able to be seized due to lapse of very long time. The investigation was continued by P.W.16 and he also recorded the statements of the other witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. After receiving various reports, the investigation was completed and a charge sheet came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aranthangi on 30.04.2010.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
8. The case was committed to the file of the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Pudukkottai and charges were framed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. (2 counts). The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.O.1 to M.O.3.
9. The appellant was questioned under Section 313(i)(b) Cr.P.C., by putting all the incriminating materials collected during the course of trial and the appellant denied the same as false.
10. The trial Court after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the categorical finding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant in the manner mentioned hereinabove.
Submissions:
11. Mr.C.Christopher, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made the following submissions:
● Even though the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 as eyewitnesses in this case, even as per the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.1 to P.W.4 had come to the scene of occurrence only after the incident was over and therefore, P.W.1 to P.W.4 could not have witnessed the incident.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 ● The evidence of P.W.1 who was recalled and cross-examined at a later point of time, clearly shows that she went to the scene of crime only after hearing the noise and she found an aruval near the body of the deceased and there was no light in the scene of occurrence/ ● Similarly, P.W.2 who was recalled and further cross-examined, had stated that he came to the scene of occurrence at about 07.00 or 07.30 p.m., and found five or ten persons who were already there and therefore, P.W.2 could never have seen the occurrence.
● P.W.3 who is also daughter-in-law of the deceased has also similarly stated that she returned to her house at 07.00 or 08.00 p.m., and therefore, she could not have seen the occurrence. P.W.4 has not spoken anything about the presence of P.W.3 in his evidence and he does not say that the incident happened when both of them were coming together after attending the function.
● The appellant was arrested nearly after two years and neither the admissible portion in the confession was marked nor the weapon (aruval) was recovered and therefore, there was no proof of any recovery in this case. ● The appellant was facing severe stress due to the earlier incident that took place wherein he is said to have attempted to murder his wife and the entire reason was only because of his mother-in-law, namely, the deceased and therefore, there was a sustained provocation in the mind of the appellant which ultimately led to the incident. Therefore, this Court may consider http://www.judis.nic.in 6/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 modification of the conviction and sentence by bringing this case under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C.
12. Per contra, Mr.M.Chandrasekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State made the following submissions:
● The evidence of witnesses, namely, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were cogent and there is nothing to discredit their evidence.
● The evidence of post-mortem Doctor (P.W.15) and the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.11) clearly reveal the extensive injuries sustained by the deceased. ● The non-recovery of weapon, namely, aruval, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution since the appellant was absconding for nearly two years and by the time, he was arrested, a long period had elapsed and therefore, it became impossible to recover the weapon.
● The evidence of P.W.11 – Doctor who had given first aid treatment to the deceased when she was admitted on 13.02.2008, read along with the Accident Register (Ex.P.6) clearly shows that steps were taken to save the deceased, but, ultimately, it failed and the deceased succumbed to injuries on 18.02.2008 at 03.30 p.m. ● The minor contradictions that have been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not, in any way, discredit the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the prosecution has clearly established their case beyond reasonable doubt.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 ● The appellant is not entitled to be considered under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C., since there was no provocation before the incident and the appellant was actually waiting for an opportunity to murder the deceased with a clear motive and therefore, this case clearly falls within the parameters of Section 300 I.P.C and the Court below had rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C.
Discussion:
13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and assessed the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
14. The appellant was already having a marital discord with his wife and on an earlier occasion, he had even gone to the extent of attacking the wife indiscriminately by throwing a stone on her head which resulted in the wife coming along with her children to her parents' house. The motive that was ascribed by the prosecution is that the appellant had a doubt on the character and fidelity of his wife and he was under the impression that it is only because of the deceased, she came out of the matrimonial home and started living with her parents. This motive has been clearly spoken to by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
15. P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the daughters-in-law of the deceased. P.W.2 is the husband of the deceased. P.W.4 is the son-in-law of the deceased and P.W.5 is the grandson of the deceased (son of the appellant). These witnesses have been cited as eyewitnesses in this case to speak about the manner and the cause of the crime.
16. P.W.1 has clearly narrated the entire sequence of events resulting in the incident and she has also explained the manner in which the incident took place.
17. The learned Counsel for the appellant raised an issue with regard to the place of occurrence by pointing out the evidence of Doctor – P.W.11 and also the Accident Register (Ex.P.6) and stated that the incident had taken place near the church and not near the house as stated by P.W.1 to P.W.5. P.W.1 in her evidence, has clearly stated that the church in question is situated only 10 to 15 feet from the house. Therefore, nothing much comes out of the so-called contradiction that was attempted to be elicited by the learned Counsel for the appellant. This witness also clearly speaks about the availability of light in the scene of crime. The evidence of P.W.1 who was later recalled and cross-examined on 08.03.2012, is liable to be summarily rejected since it is clear that she was bought over and she has contradicted her own statement during her earlier cross-examination on 09.03.2011.
18. P.W.2 is the husband of the deceased and he has also witnessed the occurrence. His evidence completely is in line with the evidence of P.W.1 and http://www.judis.nic.in 9/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. He specifically stated that he took the deceased in an ambulance to the Government Hospital, Aranthangi, where the deceased was treated by P.W.11. The Accident Register (Ex.P.6) also clearly gives the name of P.W.2 to be the person who had admitted the deceased in the hospital. Even during the cross-examination, there is nothing that has discredited the evidence of this witness.
19. P.W.3 who is also the daughter-in-law of the deceased has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. She has also clearly stated that the incident took place near the house of Santhana Mary. She has also stated in her evidence about the presence of the other eyewitnesses.
20. P.W.4 is the son-in-law of the deceased who had also attended the ear boring function and he was returning from the church along with P.W.3. He also speaks about the manner in which the incident took place. His evidence also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3.
21. The evidence of P.W.5 who is a child witness and who is the son of the appellant (grand son of the deceased) assumes greater significance. He was studying in 8th Standard at the time of the incident. He has clearly described the incident in his chief examination and also in the cross-examination that was conducted on 14.03.2011. There was nothing to discredit his evidence and he categorically stated that only his father attacked the deceased with aruval inflicting fatal cut injuries. http://www.judis.nic.in 10/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 Unfortunately, this witness was again recalled for further cross-examination on 08.03.2012 and he gave certain contradictory statements. His further cross- examination is outright liable to be rejected since he has been bought over and therefore, the so-called contradictions elicited from the cross-examination that took place on 08.03.2012 is of no consequence. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.5 is extracted hereunder:
“ehd; ntsh';fd;dp khjh gs;spapy; gj;jhk;
tFg;g[ gof;fpnwd;/ vd; mk;kh bgah; briyj;nkhp/
vdJ mg;gh bgah; gPl;lh;/ M$h; vjphp jhd; vd;
mg;gh/ vd; mg;ghtpw;Fk; mk;khtpw;Fk; rz;il te;J
vd; mk;khtpd; jiyapy; vd; mg;gh fy;iy
J}f;fpnghl;ljhy; vd; mk;kh mk;khr;rp tPl;oy; ,Ue;J tUfpwhh;/ 13/2/08k; njjp md;W ehd; vd;
mk;khr;rpa[ld; (re;jhdnkhpa[ld;) vd; bghpak;kh tPL tpnrc&j;Jf;fhf rh;r;Rf;F nghapUe;njhk;/ rha';fhyk; 7 kzp mstpy; jpUk;gp te;njhk;/ te;j nghJ v';fs;
tPl;ow;F mUfpy; epd;W bfhz;oUe;j vjphp vd; mg;gh vd; mk;khr;rpia ghh;j;J vd; kidtpia vd;Dld;
thH tplhky; jLg;gJ eP jhd; vd;W brhy;yp vd;
mg;gh mhpthshy; mk;khr;rp ifapy; btl;odhh; kw;Wk;
clypy; gy gFjpapy; btl;odhh;/ mg;nghJ mjid
jLf;f te;j vdJ jhj;jh (mrh2) vd; mj;ij
(mrh1) Mfpnahiu vd; mg;gh fpl;nl te;jhy; btl;o tpLntd; vd;W brhy;yp mhpthSld; Xotpl;lhh;/ gpd;g[ vd; mk;khr;rp re;jhdnkhpia vd; jhj;jht[k; vd; mj;ija[k; kUj;Jtkid bfhz;L brd;whhh;fs;/ gpd;g[ vd; mk;khr;rp rpfpr;ir gydpd;wp ,we;Jtpl;lhh;/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf Ma;thsh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;/” http://www.judis.nic.in 11/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 is cogent, natural and trustworthy and believable. This Court is not able to find out any major contradictions in their evidence and the prosecution has clearly established the factum of the occurrence through these witnesses. Any contradiction that is attempted to be elicited is by virtue of recalling the witnesses and further cross- examining them after one year and such contradictions deserve to be rejected.
23. The law on this issue has been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in a catena of decisions and useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Akil alias Javed v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 63. This judgment was followed by this Court in Dharmaraj v. The Inspector of Police, Athanakottai Police Station reported in 2015-2-L.W.(Crl.) 458. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in Akil alias Javed v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 63, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has had an occasion to deal with similar factual situation and ultimately held that in a criminal proceeding if a witness has been cross- examined after a long interval from the date of chief examination and circumstances are available for the purpose of believing that he or she might have been won over by other side, such evidence can be disregarded/eschewed.” http://www.judis.nic.in 12/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
24. One more judgment that can be relied upon is the judgment of this Court in Rasukannu @ Rengasamy v. State reported in (2018) 1 MLJ (Crl) 306.
25. The evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 who are the witnesses for Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.4) and Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P.5) clearly supports the case of the prosecution regarding the steps taken by the Investigation Officer after he came to the scene of occurrence. The initial treatment was given by P.W.11 who was the Doctor working at the Government Hospital, Aranthangi and he has made the entry in the Accident Register (Ex.P.6) which shows the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the deceased. The post-mortem Doctor (P.W.15) speaks about the injuries sustained by the deceased and the post-mortem certificate marked as Ex.P.11 reveals the following injuries:
“External Injuries:
1) An infected Curved sutured cut wound over the front of left ear measuring 8cm x 2cm x bone deep.
2) A curved cartilage deep cut wound over the whole of middle of left ear with cut fracture of the same.
3) An infected curved cut wound over the back of left ear measuring 8cm x 2cm x Bone deep with cut fracture of the underlying lower part of Temporal Bone.
4) An infected sutured chop wound over the left side lower lateral part of occipital region of scalp measuring 8cm x 2cm x Bone deep with cut fracture of the underlying bone.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
5) A curved sutured cut wound over the right parietal eminence area of scalp measuring 3cm x 1cm x Bone deep.
6) A transversely oblique sutured cut wound over the top of occipital region and the adjoining right parietal region of scalp measuring 10cm x 2cm x bone deep with cut fracture of the underlying bones.
7) An oblique sutured cut wound over the lower part of right side occipital region of scalp measuring 7cm x 2cm x bone deep with cut fracture of the underlying bone.
8) Two small skin deep punctured wounds over the middle of right side Parietal and occipital regions.
9) Upper part of right ear pinna was found chopped out and infected.
10) A curved sutured cut wound in front of right ear measuring 7cm x 2cm x Bone deep.
11) An oblique sutured cut wound over the middle of frontal and left side parietal regions of scalp measuring 12cm x 2cm x Bone deep with cut fracture of the underlying bones.
12) An 'U' shaped infected sutured cut wound just below the left eye over left cheek each limb measuring 7cm x 6cm x Bone deep.
13) Plaster of paris cost dressings noted over the whole of right upper limb on removal of the same an oblique sutured cut wound over the middle of front of right upper arm measuring 8cm x 2cm x Bone deep with a linear scratch abrasion of 8cm in length from its upper end and with cut fracture of the middle of right humerus bone.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
14) An infected punctured wound over the back of lower third of right forearm measuring 2cm x 1cm x Bone deep.
15) An oblique sutured cut wound over the palmar aspect of right thumb measuring 4cm x 1cm x Bone deep with cut fracture of the phalanges.
16) An elliptical infected cut wound just above the medical aspect of left elbow joint measuring 4cm x 2cm x Bone deep.
17) A transverse sutured cut wound over the middle of front of left upper arm measuring 8cm x 1cm x Bone deep with cut fracture of left Humerus bone.
18) A curved sutured cut wound over the left shoulder region measuring 18cm x 2cm x Bone deep with cut fracture of Head of Humerus and Aeromian process and fracture dislocation of left shoulder joint.
19) A sutured cut wound over the back of upper part of left upper arm measuring 10cm x 1cm x Bone deep with a linear scratch abrasion of 6cm length from its lower end.
20) An oblique sutured cut wound over the lateral aspect of left breast measuring 4cm x 1cm x Muscle Deep with a linear scratch abrasion of 4cm from its lower end.
21) A Transverse sutured stab wound over the lower part of left side lateral abdominal wall measuring 6cm x 1cm x Abdominal cavity deep. No injury to the Abdominal visceral organs.
22) A surgically made and sutured wound vertically placed leftparamedian wound measuring 16cm in length found extending from the ziphisternum upto the supra http://www.judis.nic.in 15/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 pubic area of front of abdomen made for treatment purpose – Laprotomy wound – found infected through which reddish brown coloured turbid purulent fluid found coming out side. Internal Injuries:-
23) On reflecting the scalp skin – sub scalp contusion noted over the whole of scalp. Multiple cut fractures of the vault of the skull bones as described above in the external cut injuries. On opening the vault of skull-
bilateral subdural, subarachnoid and intracerebral haemorrhages with subdural basal blood clots. Brain was found to be oedematous. Laceration of both sides temporal lobes of brain with softening of the brain and surrounding blood clots. CSF was found to be turbid and blood stained. Thin layer of greenish yellow coloured layer of pus found spread all over brain matter cut fracture of both sides middle cranial fossa. Posterior cranial fossa and anterior cranial fossa.
All the above mentioned injuries were of antemortem in nature most probably due to assault by a heavy cutting weapon like arival.
Extremities : Pale
Pericardium : Intact
Heart : Normal in size. All
the chambers contained
fluid blood.
Valves, Great Vessels : Normal
Coronary vessels : Patent
Lungs :C/S both pale and
Oedematous
Larynx, Hyoid bone : inact
Stomach : contained 100ml of bile
stained brown coloured fluid
with no specific smell.
Mucosa – Pale.
http://www.judis.nic.in
16/21
Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
Liver, Spleen,Kidneys : C/S pale
Small intestines :Empty, mucosa-pale, No
specific smell made out.
Bladder : Empty
Uterus : Normal in size C/S
Cavity empty.
Pelvis, Spinal column : Intact.
Opinion:
The deceased would appear to have died due to
the effects and complications of Multiple cut injuries involving many of the vital structures.” [extracted as such]
26. The post-mortem Doctor (P.W.15) has given a final report to the effect that the deceased had died due to the effects and complications of the multiple cut injuries sustained by her in the vital organs.
27. Even though the learned Counsel for the appellant sought to bring to the notice of this Court the difference in the number of injuries that were shown in the Accident Register (Ex.P.6) and the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.11), this Court is not able to find any such major contradictions and the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.
11) has dealt with each and every injury in detail and the Accident Register (Ex.P.6) has dealt with only important injuries. Since there was emergency, the deceased was later referred to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, considering the seriousness of the injuries.
28. The investigation in this case has been carried out in an effective manner and it had commenced immediately after the F.I.R., was registered on http://www.judis.nic.in 17/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 14.02.2008. There is no undue delay at any stage of the investigation and the investigation has clearly proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubts.
29. The non-recovery of the weapon, namely, aruval is not fatal to the case of the prosecution since the arrest itself had taken place after two years after the incident. The Honourable Supreme Court in Prabhash Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1236, has held that non-recovery of a murder weapon from the accused cannot be a ground for acquittal when the evidence of eyewitness is trustworthy. Paragraph 12 of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
“12. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. As there is clear eyewitness account of the incident and none of the two eyewitnesses could be shaken during cross-
examination and they had stuck to the recollection of the facts relating to the incident, the mere fact that the weapon of assault or the bullet was not recovered cannot demolish the prosecution case. ....” The said judgment will squarely apply to the facts of the present case.
30. This Court is not in agreement with the ground raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the effect that there was a sustained provocation for the appellant to have ended up in committing the crime of this nature. This Court does not find any materials in order to substantiate this submission. In the earlier incident, http://www.judis.nic.in 18/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018 it was the appellant who had attempted to indiscriminately attack his wife and threw a stone on her head and this was spoken to by none other than the son of the appellant clearly in his evidence. Therefore, the wife of the appellant had no other go except to go to her parents' house along with her children. The deceased is in no way responsible for this incident since the appellant was gunning for his wife by suspecting her character and fidelity. This Court does not find any provocation that was instigated by the deceased before the incident. The deceased was attaked while she was returning back from the church after attending the ear boring function. The appellant was, in fact, waiting for the deceased to come to the place of occurrence before he started attacking the deceased and executed his plan. Therefore, this Court does not find any materials to bring this case within Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. Conclusion:
31. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant had a previous motive to do away with the deceased and had involved in committing a gruesome crime against the deceased. This incident has been clearly spoken to by the eyewitnesses, namely, P.W.1 to P.W.5 and it has been corroborated by the medical evidence. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts against the appellant.
http://www.judis.nic.in 19/21 Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
32. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Index :Yes/No [S.V.N.,J.] [N.A.V.,J.]
Internet :Yes/No 22.10.2019
rsb
To
1.The Sessions Court (Mahila Court),
Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Arantangi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
20/21
Crl.A.(MD)No.50 of 2018
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
rsb
Criminal Appeal (MD)No.50 of 2018
22.10.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
21/21